About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CNNW 5
MSNBCW 2
FBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
such as al-qaeda and others that they are going to have to live witness because there is not any way to get rid of them. >> i see the mideast deteriorating. i think the last four years has been a failure by the obama administration to realistically to assess the threat that growing. arab spring we didn't see coming but after that the administration had a hands off policy. when they were trying to pull khadafy out libya came for a killing zone. if it weren't for secretary clinton and ambassador rice pushing obama, it would have been worse. we need to be training a libyan army to replace the militias. i went in september of last year with marco rubio and john mccain and myself went to libya. we came back and said the biggest threat to libya making it is these militias. we need to help the libyans train a national army. they were willing to pay for it. in egypt we really led from behind. this idea of having a hands off policy toward syria is about to blochb the whole region up. the war is coming to israel. it's affecting turkey and other places. so i believe that if they don't lead from the fr
.i.a. immediately it was terrorism and it said al-qaeda in the official c.i.a. talking points. but after it left our hands, we don't know exactly who changed the talking points. brian, that's what everybody in washington has been trying to figure out, who, who, who did it? >> brian: the national intelligence director, james clapper, the same who went up to general petraeus and said, i really suggest you resign, says it was my office. he said that because the al-qaeda mentions by the c.i.a. in his mind, were tenuous and too tenuous to publicize, so cbs learned and we have confirmed, that we decided to tell congress that -- or susan rice a different story. >> alisyn: this is curious because the committee that's investigating this and the house said that they tonight remember that. in fact, that is quite opposite from what was testified to previously about who knew what when. so congressman mike rogers, who is the chairman of the committee said he finds this story officially, basically, out of the office and he wants to reinterview james clapper to ask about this, quote, new explanation coming out of t
to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. why did she say that -- why did she say that al-qaeda has been decimated in her statement here on this program? al-qaeda hasn't been decimated. they're on the rise. they're all over iraq. they're in training camps n libya, they're on the rise everywhere in the middle east. there's a lot of questions we have for embassador rice and she would -- i'm sure i'll have the opportunity to discuss these with her. >> chris: you're saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position just as she said. but she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states, who in a debate with mitt romney, said he had said it was a terrorist attack. he hadn't. that night on "60 minutes" he said they didn't know what kind of attack it was and he continued -- >> chris: he said in an interview with 60 minutes. >> which we didn't see until after the election. i'm sure it was such an inconsequential statement it didn't deserve the attention of the
stability and prevent al-qaeda's return after nato leaves. he is preparing for confirmation for the next hearing when he was swept in the petraeus e-mail scandal. the inspector general is investigating. >> jennifer griffin, thank you. still ahead, director of national intelligence changes his story. first, we go to point pleasant beach, new jersey, four weeks after hurricane sandy. victor! victor! i got your campbell's chunky soup. mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. the giants don't have a mascot! ohhh! eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans. hmmm. for giant hunger! thanks mom! see ya! whoaa...oops! mom? i'm ok. grandma? hi sweetie! she operates the head. [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right. a hybrid? most are just no fun to drive. she operates the head. now, here's one that will make you feel alive. meet the five-passenger ford c-max hybrid. c-max says ha. c-max says wheeee. which is what you get, don't you see? cause c-max has lots more horsepower than prius v, a hybrid that c-max also bests in mpg. say hi t
the highest ranking administration official to link the attacks with al qaeda. you can see john mccain interview tonight at 6:00 p.m. eastern, only on the fox news channel. >>heather: and now from egypt, a teen member of the muslim brotherhood killed in a deadly attack on the headquarters near cairo. this is the party of the egypt's president morsi face unrest after a decision granting himself sweeping new powers. and now, streaming live from cairo, steve, what can you tell us about his planned meeting on monday with his opponent? >>reporter: there are signs that president morsi is trying to reach out to the opponents and will meet on monday with chief justices here in cairo. judges across the country have gone on strike since president morsi's decrease putting himself above the court. he is trying to reach out to the judges perhaps some time to move toward compromise by the president but talks with the opposition leaders with opposition figures still unlikely. many members of the opposition say there will be no dialogue with president morsi until he revokes the decrease. >>heather
that changes including stripping out word al qaeda a had affect of minimizing roll are terrorism but now went last 24 hours, clap are's officclapper's office saiy reversal and said they were responsible for those changes. and adam shift said, to anyone listening it was clear from general petraeus, and other officials to testified last week, talking points were ammended to protect classified sources of information. and not subject to any political spin, now clapper must explain genesis of the statement about attack which was blamed on this video and a demonstration eye jacked by terrorists. >> i think wha clapper has to sy whether he add vacated the youtube video theory, whether he pressed it on the white house, if so, did he did it at the direction of the white house, that is something we need a lot more testimony bgiven that he is flatly contradicted what he told congress last week. >> reporter:since this reversal, on the statements we've made requests to his office, for comment but our calls have not been returned, lou. lou: catalina, that is a remarkable development on this thanksgiving ev
that went to the daily briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. the others gave a different impression, if not contradicting that. like it was a protest. the person who delivered the talking points was susan rice. she said something that i think republicans believe she knew wasn't true. she said it, she must from known it wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic for two reasons. why would she know it wasn't true. >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right. but the point is intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of information that are intentional or can both be true, both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, which seemed like what was the case. so, if you were given one set of talking points that were classified i don't see why -- do you go back to the cia and say you are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here and you want to obscure the fact we know who the terrorists were -- >> this is petraeus' argument at the closed
briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. and then the up classified talking points gave a very different impression. the person who delivered those talking points was susan rice. she said something republicans believe wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic. why would she know it wasn't true? and second of all -- >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right, but the point is, intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of intelligence can be both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, and so if you were given one set of talking points that are classified and then a litter iteration that are unclassified, do you go back to the cia and say you guys are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here, and there are reasons why you would want to obscure the fact that we would know who the terrorists were, if there was -- >> which is petraeus' argument. >> i don't necessarily buy that either. but the point being at the time, the intelligence comm
questions. >> greta: now that dni now they say they were the ones who took the word al-qaeda out of the memo. >> this is the tech time that clapper has offered what amounted to a political defense of the administration. there had been obviously lots of questions raised about this last week. everybody said we don't know how the are language was pulled out. it's also the second time that clapper seems to have contradicted something he said before. if you look back to the stiary his office released, he said we initially assessed this has been a spontaneous demonstration. we revise that had assessment to reflect the fact we understood it was a terrorist attack -- that is not what people testified to. a number of intelligence officials on capitol hill saying under oath, we need immediately this was a terrorist attack. those two things, you put those statements next to each other that is flat contradiction. how do we have those contradictions two months after this. >> greta: from the state department phone call, fox excluded from the c.i.a. briefing and when the explanation when the dni, they don'
pickings from the political grapevine. teaching the boston tea party and terrorism and same day as al-qaeda. and teachers are instructed to read this report and it just happened in the last hour. and a local militia attacked the privacy of citizens at the port and no one was injured, but a large quantity of merchandise considered to be valuable to owners and loathsome to the perpetrators was destroyed. the terrorists, apparently intoxicated were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens to harbor the fugitives to conceal their identities. and they believe it's by the occupying government. and trying to determine mo the terrorists are and where that event happened. and chicago mayor rahm emanuel is looking at ways for moms and dads to show up at parents-teachers conferences, they're offering a reward showing up at 70 schools. los angeles times in calling the card a bribe, says, is it what it's come to, the only way to get parents to fulfill their basic responsibilities is with a financial incentive? walgreen's is picking up the tabs hoping to encourage more shopping in it
as the aircraft carrier "carl vinson" waits for the body of osama bin laden. it's may 2nd, 2011. the al qaeda leader's just been killed by navy s.e.a.l.s. in e-mails, two u.s. navy admirals used code words to describe bin laden. the commander of the carrier strike group says, fedex delivered the package, both trucks are safely en route, home base. the e-mails were just released in response to a lawsuit by the group judicial watch. a few days earlier, the question was asked, do i need any spiritual ceremonial preparations? "traditional procedures for islamic burial was followed. the deceased's body was washed and then placed in a white sheet. a military officer read prepared religious remarks which were translated into arabic by a native speaker, after the words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, whereupon the deceased's body slid into the sea. according to the e-mails, there aren't many witnesses. in ponce response to this question, the heading of one e-mail says, burial, no sailors watched. another says, only a small group of the leadership was informed,
. at the end of the day, we're going to have to dismantle this terror state. imagine you had a small al qaeda state right next to the united states, shooting missiles at you. you can't talk to them. you have to defeat terror. after we defeat terror, i certainly would engage in long-term peace talks. but there first has to be a step of dismantling this terror state that's right next to us. >> and that doesn't sound very hopeful. i have to say, many of the smart minds we've spoken to say they believe this cease fire will hold. the big question is, will a broader peace agreement take hold? i ask you this. what is it going to take? egypt was critical, as you know, in brokering this deal. will egypt have to remain a permanent mediator as talks continue? >> well, i think egypt has an islamic regime also, but obviously they were mediators here in this case. we have to define the situation. we're not talking about a state that is looking for long-term peace. we're talking to a state that has decided deliberately to wipe us out. now, yes, i'm not always the bearer of good news. i want peace more than
speaking out. james clapper saying he is the one who took out al qaeda talking points after originally saying he had no idea who did it. so who should we all believe here? joining us now is former cia covert operations officer mike baker live in boise idaho at 3:15 a.m. good to see you, mike. >> thank you. good to see you and thank you for the opportunity. >> what do we make of all of this after what susan rice has come out and said? she clearly relayed the intel given to her. should we expect a diplomat to do more than that. to go beyond and ask questions before relay ago story to the media. >> well, right. not just a diplomat but the person that president obama claims would be a perfect secretary of state to replace secretary clinton. ambassador rice is stying five days after the attack. now it's three mons on from the attack and we are still kind of around with the potential investigation. getting people in to testify. but ambassador rice is saying five days after the attack all she did, at the behest of the white house was go on the sunday morning talk show circuit and rely entirel
with hamas because by law they are a terrorist organization. like you wouldn't deal with al qaeda. the egyptians, yes, they have special relations with them. i think the egyptian involvement was very valuable. i think the leadership that was exercised by president obama and hillary clinton was tremendous. and the formalities are of less consequences than the intentions and indeed the dealing on the ground. >> i understand that. but it also seems that formalities, especially on this issue that is so intractable, they -- they're more than formalities. that is a sign of something so much deeper. which brings me to egypt. you negotiated now using egypt as an interimmediate airy. they're an islamist government. their president appeared at rallies where they talk about jerusalem as the capital of the arabs, there are chants we are all hamas. as you said, he stepped up and played a pro active role here. are you setting a precedent where you're going to have to talk to hamas? >> well, again, we will be very happy to talk to hamas. we have been ready to talk to hamas since they took over g
animal house! james clapper says i took that pesky, that al-qaeda stuff out. >> right. >> and so for susan rice, the secretary of state in waiting, as it were, to say, i'll take ese talking points. give me these eight talking points that have been sanitized and cleaned up and altered and then i'll go out on national television on five shows and i'll read it. >> instead she should have done what? >> at the same time, you treat me as a credible person who is worthy of becoming secretary of state. someone who is worthy of credibility and truthfulness. in diplomacy, people tell lies all the time. but there has to be some sense of credibility. >> what should she have done? >> she should have told the true. >> but to her, that was the truth. >> no, no, no. wait a second. how is she going to find it? common sense a guide. history is a guide. past experience is a guide. five attacks in the previous few months, the red cross being bombed, our whole embassy being bombed, the british ambassador almost being assassinated, benghazi being known as a hot bed for terrorism and al-qaeda in the mi
took out al-qaeda talking points after originally saying he had no idea who did it. so who should we really believe? maybe santa can help us. nope. instead we got michael goodwin. you can find his columns in the "new york post" and fox news. who is telling the truth and who is lying? >> look, you ask who we should believe? i think no one. that's the whole point of putting people under oath. then supposedly get the truth or we get perjury. i believe susan rice had to know better before she made those comments. i just recently reread president obama's speech to the u.n. where there is no question he is saying the video did it. all of that was false. they all had reason to know it was false. clapper is just a clown. i mean, he does this all the time. and the idea that james clapper can take responsibility for making the changes, why isn't president obama furious at him? why doesn't president obama fire him today if the president really believed that clapper made a huge mistake? >> gretchen: that's a loaded question because as director of national intelligence to say one thing and then s
in the middle-east is inviting this change to go in the wrong direction. al qaeda is on the rise, the islamists are on the rise. morsesi looked at iraq and saw al-maliki on the rise. our policy should be all in, keeping with our national interest and keeping with our values and help shape morsi. he is not going away. >> how do you think the president will walk the line of not getting involved in affairs we shouldn't be involved and and stopping the dominoes that are falling, one by one and balancing our national security, which is definitely impacted? >> it definitely is. there are four transition governments. one is in libya, we have a moderate government there that we influence, our failed policy there led to benghazi. syria -- that's unfolding, also tunisia and yemen. those countries are yet to be resolved. we can definitely influence that. if we don't influence that, if we sit on our hands, it is likely that radical islamists will have undue influence. >> shannon: how long do you think the cease-fire holds between hamas and israel? >> no one knows for sure. but i think it will hold for a wh
no sailors on the ship watched the former al-qaeda leader's funeral. they also say that traditional islamic procedures were followed and religious remarks were translated into arabic and read aloud. >> did general david petraeus' staff give top secret information to a woman he had an affair with? that's what federal investigators want to know. they believe she was given classified information by aides and other high ranking military officials at the request of petraeus. broadwell and petraeus deny those claims. >>> shoppers, beware. someone or something may be secretly spying on you. ♪ . >> we're talking about this mannequin. it uses facial recognition software to identify your age, gender and race. it can also figure out how many people enter a store and how long they've shopped for. it was unveiled at a 2010 trade show, but it is just now being rolled out as retailers around the world. they hope it will help boost sales, but many say it's an invasion of privacy. me included. >> what started out as an ordinary dance class for a little girl in nevada quickly turned into a thanksgiving sur
't know how these talking points had been changed and al qaeda and terrorist attacks have been taken out of it. just a day or so ago, it may have been the director of national intelligence james clapper, or someone on his staff. congress has a lot of work to do to get us answers. two months after this tragic event. martha: james clapper testified last week and he said he is unaware of who changed the talking points. he said that he will find out and changes were made outside of the intelligence committee. so how can he be blamed if he is saying that and testifying, saying that he didn't change anything? >> i do not know. i am so confused. the american people are confused. that is very troubling. congress has the ability to talk to these individuals where the truth should be revealed. there may be reagan's that they don't until certain things because of intelligence sources there's no reason they can't tell the chairman of the intelligence committee in the house and senate. this is very troubling, the american people deserve better. we need answers about this and the credibility of the na
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)